JFC cant you read plain english?

Post #298,468 by boxley 10/27/08 11:01:14 PM Reply	JFC cant you read plain english? that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states canÂt do to you. Says what the federal government canÂt do to you, but doesnÂt say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf. ***************** thats from your quote, so he advocates changing the constitution to enumerate what the feds and states must do for you When you do that, it inevitably leads to stuff like this government forced abortions china government forced births russia government forced euthenasia nederlands government forced stonings Iran gevernment forced baths germany all in the name of protecting the $variable because the constitution mandates the $variable I much prefer to live where the government cannot enforce squat unless heavily supervised by the governed Karl Marx was an excellent law professor as well So was Franco I wouldnt trust either of them with our constitution Obama has explicitly demanded those types of changes to a document that abhors such change no thanx, rather take my chances with the whack job and the hockey broad but will steadfastly vote for neither thanx, if lemmy and god had a wrestling match who would win?
Post #298,470 by malraux 10/27/08 11:18:12 PM Reply	I don't think it says what you think it says. Pretty clear to me. The Warren Court wasn't radical. The Civil Rights movement concentrated too much on trying to get the court to be radical. It should have concentrated on community organizing instead. I don't see what you're talking about at all. Regards, -scott <i>Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.</i>
Post #298,481 by boxley 10/28/08 9:25:30 AM Reply	lets ask a law professor from Northwestern University who came to the same conclusion as I did http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122515067227674187.html If Mr. Obama wins we could possibly see any or all of the following: a federal constitutional right to welfare; a federal constitutional mandate of affirmative action wherever there are racial disparities, without regard to proof of discriminatory intent; a right for government-financed abortions through the third trimester of pregnancy; the abolition of capital punishment and the mass freeing of criminal defendants; ruinous shareholder suits against corporate officers and directors; and approval of huge punitive damage awards, like those imposed against tobacco companies, against many legitimate businesses such as those selling fattening food. Nothing less than the very idea of liberty and the rule of law are at stake in this election. We should not let Mr. Obama replace justice with empathy in our nation's courtrooms. if lemmy and god had a wrestling match who would win?
Post #298,487 by malraux 10/28/08 9:45:16 AM 10/28/08 9:56:30 AM Reply	lets ask a law professor from the University of Chicago http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/ 'In other words, Obama says pretty much the opposite of what the McCain camp says he said. Contrary to the spin put on his remarks by McCain economics adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin, he does not express "regret" that the Supreme Court has not been more "radical." Nor does he describe the Court's refusal to take up economic redistribution questions as a "tragedy." He uses the word "tragedy" to refer not to the Supreme Court, but to the civil rights movement: "One of the tragedies of the civil rights movement was that the civil rights movement became so court focused, I think, there was a tendency to lose track of the political and organizing activities on the ground that are able to bring about the coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change." Holtz-Eakin "read a different interview to the one I heard," said Dennis Hutchinson, a University of Chicago law professor who joined Obama in the panel discussion. "Obama said that redistribution of wealth issues need to be decided by legislatures, not by the courts. That is what a progressive income tax is all about."' Regards, -scott <i>Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.</i> Edited by malraux Oct. 28, 2008, 09:56:30 AM EDT Expand All History
Post #298,490 by mhuber 10/28/08 9:54:46 AM Reply	He forgot to mention that we could also see blue-helmeted stormtroopers raping our cats. And the forced mass-conversion of Prespeterians to Rastafarianism. And the re-painting of the White-House to pepto-bismol pink.
Post #298,471 by Another Scott 10/27/08 11:35:34 PM Reply	Yes. Consider the entire paragraph, please. :-) Hint - he's not saying what you think he's saying. Box - "Obama has explicitly demanded those types of changes to a document that abhors such change" Not so, you're misreading him. If you're going to take the WorldNetDaily view of what he meant, well there's not much I can do to change that. I've pointed you to multiple sources that indicate that your interpretation isn't correct. Have a look at this NY Times piece from July, if you haven't seen it already. He sees the complications in life - he's not the cartoon painted by the Rush Limbaughs of the world. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/30/us/politics/30law.html?ei=5124&en=337ecbaa93d25b8c&ex=1375156800&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink&pagewanted=print Have fun. :-) Cheers, Scott.
Post #298,472 by Another Scott 10/28/08 12:06:50 AM Reply	One more thing. This might make you feel a little better. http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2008_10_26-2008_11_01.shtml#1225136074 === begin cut === [...] Generally, the court is institutionally conservative. And what I mean by that is, it's not that often that the court gets out way ahead of public opinion. The Warren Court was one of those moments when, because of the particular challenge of segregation, they needed to break out of conventional wisdom because the political process didn't give an avenue for minorities and African Americans to exercise their political power to solve their problems. So the court had to step in and break that logjam. I'm not sure that you need that. In fact, I would be troubled if you had that same kind of activism in circumstances today. ... So when I think about the kinds of judges who are needed today, it goes back to the point I was making about common sense and pragmatism as opposed to ideology. I think that Justice Souter, who was a Republican appointee, Justice Breyer, a Democratic appointee, are very sensible judges. They take a look at the facts and they try to figure out: How does the Constitution apply to these facts? They believe in fidelity to the text of the Constitution, but they also think you have to look at what is going on around you and not just ignore real life. That, I think is the kind of justice that I'm looking for -- somebody who respects the law, doesn't think that they should be making law ... but also has a sense of what's happening in the real world and recognizes that one of the roles of the courts is to protect people who don't have a voice. That's the special role of that institution. The vulnerable, the minority, the outcast, the person with the unpopular idea, the journalist who is shaking things up. That's inherently the role of the court. And if somebody doesn't appreciate that role, then I don't think they are going to make a very good justice. === end cut === HTH! Cheers, Scott.

Welcome to IWETHEY!